Ex-Google engineer could face criminal charges
An Uber executive accused of stealing driverless car technology from his former employers at Google is exercising his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, according to his lawyers.
The lawyers for Anthony Levandowski, the former head of Google’s self-driving car project who is now leading a similar effort at Uber, said he was broadly asserting his Fifth Amendment rights because there is “potential for criminal action” in the case, according to court transcripts released Thursday.
The legal maneuver adds even more intrigue to the highprofile fight between two of the technology industry’s largest companies, which are squaring off in the race to put driverless cars on the road.
Levandowski is at the center of the lawsuit between Uber and Waymo, which was spun out from Google to become its own Alphabet subsidiary. Waymo has accused Levandowski of stealing documents and poaching employees before quitting Google and then colluding with Uber to use that technology to advance driverless car efforts at the ride-hailing service.
Shortly after leaving Google, Levandowski started his own self-driving truck startup, Otto. Six months after
Otto was formed, Uber acquired the company for $680 million.
Waymo filed a motion seeking a temporary injunction this month to stop Uber’s driverlesscar development.
In the transcript of a private hearing before Judge William Alsup in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, Levandowski’s lawyers said he was invoking his Fifth Amendment right to avoid incrimination in turning over documents relevant to the case. Uber’s lawyers said they have made clear to Levandowski that he needs to release any documents relevant to the case as part of discovery.
Angela Padilla, Uber’s associate general counsel, said in a statement that the company plans to publicly lay out its case on April 7. “We are very confident that Waymo’s claims against Uber are baseless and that Anthony Levandowski has not used any files from Google in his work with Otto or Uber,” she said.
One of Levandowski’s lawyers said the Uber executive’s position on invoking the Fifth Amendment may change as they examine the case.
That is not the only turn the case has taken recently.
Several months before filing a lawsuit against Uber, Google demanded arbitration against Levandowski, claiming that he used confidential salary information while trying to poach former colleagues for his new venture.
Google’s previously undisclosed legal action against him came out in a motion filed by Uber’s lawyers Wednesday.
Uber wants to settle the lawsuit in arbitration, arguing that Waymo’s claims stem from Levandowski’s time at Google and are covered by an arbitration clause in his employment contract. Arbitration is usually less expensive and proceeds faster than a federal lawsuit. It is not argued in front of a jury, and arbitration hearings are not part of the public record.
In Wednesday’s motion, Uber said that Waymo filed two arbitration demands against Levandowski in October saying that he breached the confidentiality agreement in his employment contract with Google when he used confidential salary information to make “targeted offers to Waymo’s employees” to aid Uber and Otto. Similarly, he used that information to induce “Waymo employees to join a competing driverless-car enterprise,” according to court documents.
The documents do not mention if the arbitration was settled. Waymo said Wednesday evening that it intended to oppose Uber’s motion.
Uber said it would move forward with its request for arbitration on the dispute with Waymo this week.
“The broad arbitration provisions in Levandowski’s employment contracts require that disputes with anyone arising out of or related to Levandowski’s employment must be arbitrated,” wrote Arturo Gonzalez, Uber’s layer.
Uber is also asking an arbitrator to declare that Waymo’s accusations that Uber misappropriated trade secrets and competed unfairly are meritless.
While Uber wants to arbitrate Waymo’s claims that Uber is using trade secrets and competed unfairly, the ride-hailing service said Waymo’s claims of patent infringement should move ahead in federal court.